Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 satisfaction with care questionnaire according to classical and item response theory analyses

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The present study investigates the properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire, which evaluates the outpatients’ satisfaction with care in oncology using classical analysis (CTT) and item response theory (IRT).

Methods

This cross-sectional multicenter study includes 692 patients who completed the questionnaire at the end of their ambulatory treatment. CTT analyses tested the main psychometric properties (convergent and divergent validity, and internal consistency). IRT analyses were conducted separately for each OUT-PATSAT35 domain (the doctors, the nurses or the radiation therapists and the services/organization) by models from the Rasch family. We examined the fit of the data to the model expectations and tested whether the model assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity and local independence were respected.

Results

A total of 605 (87.4 %) respondents were analyzed with a mean age of 64 years (range 29–88). Internal consistency for all scales separately and for the three main domains was good (Cronbach’s α 0.74–0.98). IRT analyses were performed with the partial credit model. No disordered thresholds of polytomous items were found. Each domain showed high reliability but fitted poorly to the Rasch models. Three items in particular, the item about “promptness” in the doctors’ domain and the items about “accessibility” and “environment” in the services/organization domain, presented the highest default of fit. A correct fit of the Rasch model can be obtained by dropping these items. Most of the local dependence concerned items about “information provided” in each domain. A major deviation of unidimensionality was found in the nurses’ domain.

Conclusions

CTT showed good psychometric properties of the OUT-PATSAT35. However, the Rasch analysis revealed some misfitting and redundant items. Taking the above problems into consideration, it could be interesting to refine the questionnaire in a future study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AIC:

Akaike information criterion

CT:

Chemotherapy

CTT:

Classical test theory

DIF:

Differential item functioning

EFA:

Exploratory factor analysis

EORTC:

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

IRT:

Item response theory

PCA:

Principal component analysis

PCM:

Partial credit model

PRO:

Patient-reported outcomes

SC:

Satisfaction with care

SD:

Standard deviation

RSM:

Rating scale model

RT:

Radiotherapy

References

  1. Burke, L. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rubin, H. R., Gandek, B., Rogers, W. H., Kosinski, M., McHorney, C. A., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1993). Patients’ ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA, 270(7), 835–840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Borras, J. M., Sanchez-Hernandez, A., Navarro, M., Martinez, M., Mendez, E., Ponton, J. L., et al. (2001). Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 322(7290), 826.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bredart, A., Bottomley, A., Blazeby, J. M., Conroy, T., Coens, C., D’Haese, S., et al. (2005). An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). European Journal of Cancer, 41(14), 2120–2131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Poinsot, R., Altmeyer, A., Conroy, T., Savignoni, A., Asselain, B., Leonard, I., et al. (2006). Multisite validation study of questionnaire assessing out-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire in ambulatory chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment. Bulletin du Cancer, 93(3), 315–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arraras, J. I., Illarramendi, J. J., Viudez, A., Lecumberri, M. J., de la Cruz, S., Hernandez, B., et al. (2012). The cancer outpatient satisfaction with care questionnaire for chemotherapy, OUT-PATSAT35 CT: A validation study for Spanish patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(12), 3269–3278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Arraras, J. I., Rico, M., Vila, M., Chicata, V., Asin, G., Martinez, M., et al. (2010). The EORTC cancer outpatient satisfaction with care questionnaire in ambulatory radiotherapy: EORTC OUT-PATSAT35 RT. Validation study for Spanish patients. Psychooncology, 19(6), 657–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II28–II42.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen, T. V., Bosset, J. F., Monnier, A., Fournier, J., Perrin, V., Baumann, C., et al. (2011). Determinants of patient satisfaction in ambulatory oncology: A cross sectional study based on the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire. BMC Cancer, 11, 526.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sitzia, J., & Wood, N. (1998). Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(4), 311–317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nunnally, J. C. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Ayala, R. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rasch, G. (1993). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. ERIC.

  17. Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 913–933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ, 310(6973), 170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ramp, M., Khan, F., Misajon, R. A., & Pallant, J. F. (2009). Rasch analysis of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale MSIS-29. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 7, 58.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (Eds.). (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2013). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 66–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Karabatsos, G. (2000). A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(2), 152–176.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Linacre, J., & Wright, B. (1994). Chi square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(2), 350.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Linacre, J. M. (2003). Rasch power analysis: Size vs. significance: Standardized chi square fit statistic. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17, 918.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sheridan, B. (1998). RUMM item analysis package: Rasch unidimensional measurement model. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(4), 599.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P. J., & Velikova, G. (2007). A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 19.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith, E. V., Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N., Blazeby, J., Brandberg, Y., de Graeff, A., et al. (2006). Item response theory was used to shorten EORTC QLQ-C30 scales for use in palliative care. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(1), 36–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pallant, J. F., Miller, R. L., & Tennant, A. (2006). Evaluation of the Edinburgh Post Natal Depression Scale using Rasch analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 6, 28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith, A. B., Wright, E. P., Rush, R., Stark, D. P., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. J. (2006). Rasch analysis of the dimensional structure of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychooncology, 15(9), 817–827.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all physicians from the centers participating in the study who agreed to invite patients to participate in this study. We thank the clinical research assistants in the two centers who participated in the data collection. This work was supported by the Regional French Hospital Clinical Research Program.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EA3181, University of Franche-Comte, Besançon, France

    M. Panouillères, A. Anota, T. V. Nguyen, J. F. Bosset & M. Mercier

  2. Quality of Life in Oncology Clinical Research Platform, Besançon, France

    A. Anota & M. Mercier

  3. Methodological and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France

    M. Panouillères & A. Anota

  4. Psycho-Oncology Unit, Institut Curie, Paris, France

    A. Brédart

  5. Oncology-Radiotherapy Department, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France

    J. F. Bosset

  6. Radiotherapy Department, Montbeliard Hospital, Montbeliard, France

    A. Monnier

  7. EA4275-SPHERE, University of Nantes, Nantes, France

    J. B. Hardouin

  8. Unit of Biostatistics and Methodology, University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France

    J. B. Hardouin

Authors
  1. M. Panouillères
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Anota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. V. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Brédart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. F. Bosset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Monnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Mercier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. B. Hardouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Panouillères.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panouillères, M., Anota, A., Nguyen, T.V. et al. Evaluation properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 satisfaction with care questionnaire according to classical and item response theory analyses. Qual Life Res 23, 2089–2101 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0658-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0658-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation